i also don't see someone from a legal standpoint and it's not rudy, i mean someone with some chops in a matter like this providing counsel for the president. of course that demands the question would he follow the advice? but it just seems so scatter shot on the merit of the underlying charge. i get the politics. i get the optics. i get complaining about how you can't cross examine and it's behind closed doors, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. but on the underlying core facts of this case, what's at issue? >> michael smerconish, no limit to the props you deserve. thank you for coming on this morning. >> see you, guys. >> be sure to watch "smerconish" tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. eastern. republicans on capitol hill worry behind the scenes that the white house is not prepared to respond to the likelihood that president trump will be impeached in the house. so how some of his biggest supporters are trying to now take the reins. breathe freely fast, with vicks sinex.